In the case of Barclay v. Florida in 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a death sentence for William Riley Jent despite allegations that racial bias influenced his sentencing by a Florida court. The defense argued that one juror's racially biased comments during deliberation had tainted the process and violated Jent's rights under both state law and the Eighth Amendment to receive fair consideration from an impartial jury. However, in a plurality opinion, Justice White wrote that while such behavior was reprehensible, it did not automatically invalidate the entire proceeding or require reversal of penalty because there was no evidence proving systemic prejudice within Florida’s judicial system or showing these views were widely held among jurors generally. Furthermore, he noted that even if this particular juror had been removed due to bias, there would still have been enough votes for capital punishment given its overwhelming support from other members on panel.

In the dissenting opinion for Barclay v. Florida, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the death penalty was unconstitutional in all circumstances and reiterated his commitment to this principle. He disagreed with the majority's view that a state supreme court could reweigh factors considered by a jury during sentencing in capital cases without violating the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. He believed it was inappropriate for judges to substitute their judgment for juries' decisions about whether certain aggravating or mitigating factors should lead to a death sentence. Furthermore, he expressed concern over racial bias influencing such judicial reviews of jury verdicts, particularly given evidence suggesting black defendants were more likely than white ones to receive death sentences under similar circumstances.